Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters Part 17

(M382) The Sumerian laws preserved the father's rights to disinherit the son by a simple repudiation, saying, "You are not my son." The son then had to leave house and enclosure. The Code limits this power. It insists on legal process and good reason alleged. Also it was not allowed for a first offence on the son's part.(361)

(M383) The mother was in much the same position of authority as the father. A son who repudiated his mother was branded and expelled from house and city. He was not, however, sold as a slave. The Sumerian laws also reserved to the mother the right to repudiate her son, and he must quit house and property. The Code gives no such power to mothers. Indeed, we find examples of a son disputing with a mother.(362) Mothers took up the father's place toward the children on the death of the father as regards marriage-portions, bride-price, and other family affairs. But they usually acted in concert with the elder children.

(M384) The repudiation of adoptive parents was a very grievous sin, especially on the part of those who were children of parents who were forbidden to have children. Something worse than illegitimacy was their lot. The penalties of having the eye torn out, or the tongue cut out,(363) show the abhorrence felt for their ingrat.i.tude.

XIV. The Education And Early Life Of Children

(M385) Much has been made of the knowledge of writing shown by the Babylonians and a.s.syrians. The ability to draw up deeds and write letters seems at first sight to have been widely diffused. In the times of the First Dynasty of Babylon almost every tablet seems to have a fresh _tupar_, or scribe. Many show the handiwork of women scribes.(364) But most of the persons concerned in these doc.u.ments were of the priestly rank. There is no evidence that the shepherds or workpeople could write.

In the a.s.syrian times the scribe was a professional man. We find _aba_ or _tupar_ used as a t.i.tle. So, too, in later Babylonian times. The witnesses to a doc.u.ment can only be said to sign their names in so far as that they impressed their seals. This was done, at any rate, in early times. In the a.s.syrian period the only parties who sealed were the owners of the property transferred to a new owner. The whole of a tablet shows the same handwriting throughout. Anyone who reads carefully through the facsimile copies in _Cuneiform Texts_ can readily see this. Different scribes, especially in early times, wrote differently, but this was still the case in a.s.syrian days. Yet no change of hand can be noted anywhere in one doc.u.ment, save where, as in the forecast tablets, a date or note was added by a different person, often in a.s.syrian script, to a text written in Babylonian. The only safe statement to make is that from the earliest times a very large number of persons existed, at any rate in the larger towns, who could write and draw up doc.u.ments.

(M386) The use of Sumerian terms and phrases in the body of a doc.u.ment written in Semitic Babylonian might be ascribed to a mere tradition. But they were no meaningless formulae. The many variations, including the subst.i.tution of completely different though synonymous words, show that these Sumerian phrases were sufficiently understood to be intelligently used. In later times they either disappear altogether, or are used with little variation. They had become stereotyped and were conventional signs, doubtless read as Semitic, though written as Sumerian. Our own retention of Latin words is a close parallel. The First Dynasty of Babylon was bilingual at any rate in its legal doc.u.ments, though the letters are all pure Semitic. The earlier doc.u.ments show few signs of Semitic origin, though its influence can be traced as far back as we can go.

(M387) The discovery at Sippara of a school dating from the First Dynasty of Babylon is very fully worked out by Professor Scheil in _Une Saison de fouilles a Sippara_, pp. 30-54. Professor Hilprecht gives further details in _Explorations in Bible Lands_, pp. 522-28 and _pa.s.sim_.

The methods of learning to write and the lessons in Sumerian are well described by these authors, and ill.u.s.trated by numerous extant examples of practice-tablets. The subjects were very numerous and included arithmetic, mensuration, history, geography, and literature. As Dr. Pinches has shown by his edition of some of these practice-tablets,(365) these contain very valuable fragments of otherwise lost or imperfectly known texts.

(M388) Slaves were often bound as apprentices to learn a trade or handicraft. A man might adopt a child to teach him his trade, and his duty to him was sufficiently discharged by doing so.

(M389) We do not yet know in any authoritative way, when or with what ceremonies children were named. In the case of slaves we have a boy, still at the breast,(366) or a girl of three months, not named.(367) On the other hand, a girl still at the breast is named. Hence Meissner concludes, that at the end of one year, at latest, the child was given a name.(368) But the usage with respect to slaves is hardly a rule, and, as appears from the above, they were not consistently named.

(M390) A child seems often to have been put out to nurse. From the phrase-book we learn that a father might "give a child to a wet-nurse to be suckled, and give the wet-nurse food and drink, oil for anointing, and clothing for three years."(369) That this was not only done with adopted children is clear from the Code;(370) where we find a severe penalty laid on a wet-nurse, who subst.i.tutes another child for the one intrusted to her, without the parents' consent.

(M391) It will hardly do to interpret the phrase-book(371) as meaning that all children were made to learn writing. But that this was commonly done is evident from the number, both of men and women, who could act as scribes.(372)

XV. Adoption

(M392) Adoption primarily means a process by which parents could admit to the privileges of sonship children born of other parents. There were many reasons which might impel them to such a course. If they were childless, a natural desire for an heir might operate. But under the Babylonian law a man might take a second wife, or a maid, if his wife were childless, to bear him children. A more operative cause was that children were a source of profit to their parents while they remained with them. But it seems that men married early. Hence this alone does not seem sufficient to account for the great frequency of adoption. Besides, in that case, what induced a parent to part with his child for adoption? It seems that the real cause most often was that the adopting parents had lost by marriage all their own children and were left with no child to look after them.

They then adopted a child whose parents would be glad to see him provided for, to look after them until they died, leaving him the property they had left after portioning their own children.

(M393) The Code admits all kinds of adoption, but regulates the custom. A man might adopt an illegitimate son, or the child of a votary or palace-warder, who had no right to children, or the child of living parents. In the latter case alone was the parents' consent necessary. We have examples of cases of adoption of relatives, of entirely unrelated persons, of a slave even.(373) We learn from the series _ana ittiu_(374) that a man might take a young child, put it out to nurse, provide the nurse with food, oil for anointing, and clothing, for a s.p.a.ce of three years; and then have it taught a trade or profession, such as that of scribe.(375)

(M394) Adoption was effected by a deed, drawn up and sealed by the adoptive parents, duly sworn to and witnessed. Such contracts definitely state the relationship, which was in all respects the same as that of a son born in matrimony. But it laid down the obligations of the son, while it stipulated what was the inheritance to which he might expect to succeed. It brought responsibilities to both parties and fixed them. The son was bound to do that which a son would naturally have done, explicitly, to maintain his parents while they lived. The parents were bound, not only to leave him property, but to treat him as a son. But, as a rule, all was matter of contract and carefully set down. If such a contract was not drawn up, although the adoptive parents had brought him up, the child must return to his father's house.(376) Only, for an artisan, it was sufficient to have taught the child his trade.(377)

So far as our examples go, some color might be given to the suggestion that adoption was always merely for the convenience of old people who wanted to be taken care of. But we know that children were adopted on other grounds. That they were children and not always grown-up men and women is clear from the above. This we may regard as adoption pure and simple. Other cases are a legal method of making provision for old age, or for other purposes for which an heir as legal representative was desirable. In the case of no legal heir, the property went back to the next of kin.

(M395) That such a process did take place in Babylonia is made clear by the Code.(378) But few examples are known where a father takes into his family an additional child. The case, in which the son is not only adopted by parents who have a family living, but is ranked as their eldest son, deserves reproducing in full.(379)

Ubar-Shamash, son of Sin-idinnam, from Sin-idinnam, his father, and Bit.i.tum, his mother, have Beltum-abi and Taram-ulmash taken to sonship, and let him be the son of Beltum-abi and Taram-ulmash.

Ubar-Shamash shall be their eldest son. The day that Beltum-abi, his father, and Taram-ulmash, his mother, say to Ubar-Shamash, their son, "You are not our son," he shall leave house and furniture. The day that Ubar-Shamash shall say to Beltum-abi, his father, or Taram-ulmash, his mother, "You are not my father or my mother," one shall brand him, put fetters upon him, and sell him.

Both parents of the adopted son were living. That the son is to be reckoned eldest implies that the adopting parents had other children. This is made clear in one case where the adoptive parents are expressly said to have five children.(380) In another case where a child is adopted a certain person is expressly said to be his brother.(381)

(M396) The existing members of the family had a real interest in the proceeding. For, as inheriting with them, the addition of another son could not but affect their prospects. We may wonder what influenced them to consent. That they did consent is clear from the often-occurring covenant by which they bound themselves not to object. One explanation may be that they had grown up and left home and were anxious for the welfare of their parents, but could not arrange to look after them themselves.

Hence for their parents' sake they were willing to forego their share, or submit to a stranger taking precedence of them, or in some cases to give up all claim to the property in their parents' possession in return for being relieved of the responsibility of looking after them. Of course, when the adopted son was only taken in as one, even the eldest, among several, he would only have a share at the parents' death. But it even seems that the children might of their own motion adopt a brother to be son to their parents.(382)

(M397) The clause which implies disinheritance in case the parents repudiate the son, or he repudiates them, could only be enforced by a law-court.(383) But it was nevertheless most regularly inserted in the contract. In one case the doc.u.ment merely consists of it,(384) leaving us to infer that an adopted son was concerned. But this is not absolutely certain. The son might have been rebellious to his mother, who was therefore minded to cut him off, and this may be the result of her bringing her son before the judge. The judge was bound to try and conciliate the parties.(385) Hence, not infrequently the son was bound over not to repeat the offence on pain of disinheritance, while the mother retained her right to disinherit. There was no mention of his being sold for a slave, or branded, as was usual when a son was adopted and then repudiated his parents.

According to the contracts entered into by the parties, parents could repudiate adopted sons. This was contrary to the law by which the consent of the judge was needed for disinheritance. It seems to be an attempt to contract without the support of the law. The son was then to take a son's share and go away.(386)

(M398) The word _aplutu_, abstract of _aplu_, "son," and therefore literally "sonship," being also used to denote the relation of a daughter to a parent, came to denote the "share" which a son or daughter received.

If a man adopted a son, he granted him an _aplutu_, or "sonship," and this carried with it a material property. But the father, while still living, might grant the son his _aplutu_ and stipulate for maintenance during the rest of his life. Such a grant begins with _aplutu a_ B, where B is the son. But it by no means follows that B is an adopted son. The question is only decided for us when the parentage of B is given. If he is said to be the "son of C," then we know that A giving him "sonship" must mean that A adopted him. But if B is merely indicated as the son of A, we cannot tell whether he was born to A, or only adopted by A.

(M399) So when the property given to B is in his power to dispose of later as he may choose, this privilege is expressed by the words, "he may give his sonship to whom he chooses." The choice is sometimes expressed as "that which is good to his heart," or "in his eyes," or "whom he loves." A modified choice is often mentioned, as when it is said that a votary may leave her "sonship" after her to whom she likes "among her brothers."

(M400) We have a large number of doc.u.ments which make reference to the _aplutu_ of a certain person, which we can render here by "heritage."

These are especially common on the part of votaries. As we have seen, they were not supposed to have children of their own, but possessed the right to nominate their heir within limits. In return for exercising this right in favor of a certain person, they usually stipulated that such person shall maintain them as long as they live and otherwise care for them. Even outside actual deeds of heritage, we find references to property derived from votaries subject to certain duties. Such dispositions of property are closely related to a will or testament, but antic.i.p.ate the death of the testator. They are really settlements for the future, which exactly answers to the t.i.tle given them by the Babylonian scribes, _ridit warkati_.

The following example makes these details clear:(387)

The heritage of Eli-eri?a, votary of Shamash, daughter of Shamash-ilu. Belisunu, votary of Shamash, daughter of Nakarum, is the caretaker of her future life. One-third _GAN_ of unreclaimed land in Karnamkarum, next the field of Issuria, one _SAR_ house in ?al?alla, next the house of Nakarum, one-third _SAR_ four _GIN_ in Gagim, one maid Shala-beltum, price ten shekels of silver, all this for the future in its entirety, what Eli-eri?a, votary of Shamash, daughter of Shamash-ilu, has or shall acquire, she gives to Belisunu, votary of Shamash, daughter of Nakarum. Every year Belisunu shall give to Eli-eri?a three _GUR_ of corn, ten minas of bronze, and twelve _?A_ of oil.

(M401) The _aplutu_ thus given was in many cases an alienation of property on which some relative had claims. Even where their consent was not necessary it was desirable that they should not involve the heir in legal processes. Hence, such relatives are called up to covenant that they will raise no objection to the heir's peaceable succession.(388)

(M402) The obligation to support the adoptive parent is emphasized. The amount of sustenance varies much. Another list of yearly allowances reads one shekel of silver, woollen yarn, six _?A_ of oil, four _iinni Shamah_, ten _?A_ of fat, one side, two _GUR_ of corn. Many others could be instanced, but they make no great addition to our knowledge.

(M403) The obligation might be service; as when a lady adopts a maid to serve her for life and inherit a certain house.(389) In another case a lady adopts a son to bring up her daughter and give her to a husband. "If he vexes his adoptive mother, she will cut him off. He shall not have claim on any of the goods of his adoptive mother, but shall inherit her field and garden."(390) Evidently the mother intended her personal effects to be her daughter's and to form her marriage-portion. The obligation did not always last long. Thus we find that Lautum, who was adopted by a votary and was herself a votary, two years later was in a position to adopt as her daughter another votary.(391) She handed on the same property, indicating that her adoptive mother was dead.

The adoption of a child by a lady of fortune was evidently a good settlement for the child, and usually the real parents raised no objection. We even find the father of a girl adopted by a lady, making an addition to her heritage in the form of a gift to the adopting mother on her effecting the deed of adoption. He gave them two male and two female slaves. Here also the girl covenanted to support the adoptive mother.(392)

(M404) Occasionally the adopted child did not carry out his duties. This was good ground for disinheriting him. But disinheritance was not to be inflicted without the sanction of the judges.(393) Hence we find that when a lady had adopted a daughter who failed to give her food and drink, the judges summoned them to the great temple of Shamash in Sippara, there cut off the daughter from her heritage, took away the tablet of adoption granted her, and destroyed it.(394)

(M405) A curious case is where A, the daughter of B and C, endows D to take care of B and C. As long as D lives A covenants to allow her so much.

When she dies A will herself perform the duties.(395) Here A evidently expected her parents would not live long, but also D must have been aged, or infirm, as A contemplates the chance of her parents outliving D. This is not a case of adoption, but is so similar in purpose to those above as to deserve a place here.

(M406) Occasionally, however, the adopting parent reserved the usufruct of the property for life only, fixing by deed the rightful heir.(396) This was, in effect, a will or testament, since the inheritance did not take effect until after the death of the testator.

XVI. Rights Of Inheritance

(M407) The division of property among the children invariably followed the death of the father. We have a very large number of contracts bearing on this custom. The contract sets forth the particulars of the division and includes a sworn declaration on the part of the recipients to make no further claim. There were certain reservations to be made in the case of minors, for whom a portion had to be set aside to provide for their making the proper gifts to the parents of their brides on marriage.

(M408) The Code deals at length with the laws of inheritance, which are best treated under the head of marriage. The actual examples occurring in the doc.u.ments of the period serve to ill.u.s.trate the practical working of these laws, but hardly add to our knowledge. They are usually occupied with the division of property among brothers. Sometimes we have some light on the reservations made in favor of other members of the family. Thus two brothers divide the property of their "father's house" and of their sister, a votary. The sister did not take her property, but the brothers were trustees for her enjoyment of it during her life, when it reverted to them in full.(397) The doc.u.ment merely states the amount of one brother's share and the other's agreement to be content with the division. In another case, where four brothers share the property of their "father's house," no details of their shares are given, but only their agreement to abide by the division made.(398) In another case the eldest brother allots to each of two younger brothers a share and takes a woman slave and her children as his portion. He is said to do this of his "own power," _ina emur ?amaniu_, and to have given them this of his "own graciousness,"

_ina tubatiu_. The brothers swear to make no further claim on the "grant," _maritu_, of their father. Either the property to which they were legally ent.i.tled had already been allotted them, or possibly they had no legal claim on any. The eldest brother is a high official, a _pa-pa_, and perhaps had succeeded his father in office. The father's property would then be the endowment of his office, a grant from the king, and as such inalienable from the office to which the eldest son had succeeded.